Comments on: Madonna’s Failed Adoption-Celebrate or Mourn?

By: simba

simba — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:12:14 +0000

Forgot to mention:
How sad that almost all of the agencies listed on the US department of state website that were DENIED Hague accreditation are the ones that don’t discriminate against any single adoptive parents, while the ones that are accredited for the most part only allow single women to adopt internationally. The Hague Convention is full of S–T and should go out of commission or change their policies quickly before God judges them accordingly.

By: simba

simba — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:56:10 +0000

If you can find the right agency, with a program in a country that is not too behind the times, anything is possible. I’m a single 24-year-old guy trying to adopt a son from the Congo. It would be nice if I was married, but women don’t like me that much, but it doesn’t mean I can’t parent. Once I’m 25 (US law), I don’t plan on waiting until I’m married because the Congo requires that couples be married at least 5 years. If I get married afterwards, then so be it. I was raised with three younger sisters and no brothers, I could raise all the boys (or girls) that a country would want to give me with or without a wife. I find it a little unethical that she was able to use her celebrity status to circumvent Malawi’s laws, but u know what? some of these countries allow single women to adopt any child but don’t allow single men to adopt girls (and in some countries any children). If I were someone like Lionel Richie, Bruce Springsteen, or any of them, and I could use my name to circumvent these Countries’ sexist, ignorant, and one-sided laws, then more power to me!!!

Here’s a new bill to introduce to the Hague:

Adoptions laws in regards to single parents must coincide with ONE of the following three provisioins:

(1) ALL single parents, men and women, may adopt any minor child, male or female. OR

(2) ALL single parents may adopt ONLY children of their SAME sex. OR

(3) NO single parents may adopt.

Furthermore, all other requirements including income, age (of both the parent and child), homestudy evaluation, etc. MUST be consistent to both male and female adoptive parents who are single, and there can be NO sex discrimination whatsoever.

Failure to implement and enact this policy by 2014 could result in forfeiture of Hague membership or termination of international adoption rights to/from Hague countries.

Pipe dream, most likely.

By: Alida

Alida — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:41:05 +0000

Yes, I second Vivianne. This has been by far the best discussion I have read on your website. Thank you all for bringing up lots of valid points and different perspectives on this oh so much debated issue of international adoption.
Dawn, thanks for keeping up this website, the blog and the radio show …. Thanks for everyhting you do!!!!

By: Vivianne

Vivianne — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:55:23 +0000

This blog and these comments have been the best discussion of this complex topic that I’ve read. I so appreciate your blog Dawn (actually I love all your blogs) and my understanding has deepened with every comment. Thank you all for commenting. I am going to go back and download a bunch of the Creating a Family shows tonight and then listen to them on my commute each morning. They are such a valuable resource.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:16:43 +0000

Thoughtful comments all. I wanted to respond to Sally because she raises an issue I’ve been discussing lately with others in the adoption field. The Hague Treaty requires the use of a Hague accredited adoption agency. I support this treaty, but I realize that using an agency does add to the cost of adoption. I would love to see international adoptions be very very inexpensive as Prof. Smolin suggests, and yet the Hague requires a fairly expensive agency infrastructure, including hefty liability insurance coverage. Is is possible for an agency to become Hague accredited and offer quality post adoption services, and still keep the cost of adoptions very low. I don’t know the answer to this question.

By: nippit queen

nippit queen — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:54:12 +0000

It is very sad to know that people will be forced to give up their own children because they are unable to raise them. Maybe we should go back to the real root cause – responsible family planning. If only these parents can actually take more time to think about how they will raise their kids before making them…

By: Margaret

Margaret — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:07:31 +0000

Some good issues raised here by all. Dawn- I agree with what you are saying here about the “temporary” placement or use of the orphanage as a “feeding center” or “boarding school”- while that may be a cultural thing- I think it is a cultural thing that does not put what is best for the child first. Maybe what should happen here ( ideally, as obviously the country of origin makes their own rules), is that there should be a time limit placed on how long the child can be left in “temporary care” of I would propose a year- before a decision must be made by the family whether they choose to care for the child or release the child for the possibility of adoption- either domestically or other. As an advocate for children it is hard to just sit back and say it is okay to leave a child in “temporary” care in an orphanage for 5 years- when they could have a home- I just don’t think that is in the best interest of the child. And possibly it would eliminate some of the “grayer” areas of adoption as to what children are truly available or not. I do think the judge made the right decision in the Malawi case but it is only with great sadness that I say that- as I think this little girl could be stuck in an institution because of it. I hope her father and grandmother really do get her out and raise her.

By: Sally

Sally — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:40:26 +0000

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is how can we make international adoption virtually free? Adoption from foster care in one’s own state is practically free. I think the adoptive parents have to pay for a home study, but that is all, no other fees, and in some cases, the state will provide the home study as well. Compare that to paying over ten thousand dollars, and usually much more if not double, to an adoption agency for an international adoption. Now, it has been frequently reported over the years that the incentive given to birthmothers in poor countries for relinquishment of their child is equal to 50 US dollars. There is no way on earth that the Hague Convention or any other means can adequately police international adoption in poor countries, because the absolutely low sum of money that is given to the birthparents is really not fathomable to us. In other words, if the adoption fees were reduced very, very significantly, and it only cost in total say $2,500 for an international adoption, that would still be more than enough to coerce a relinquishment from a birthparent. Money is the issue and adoption should be free, whether domestic or international. This might remove the need for international adoption agencies and only the neediest children would be able to be adopted internationally. But maybe that is the way it should be.

By: Charlene

Charlene — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:21:48 +0000

I am disappointed to see a blog post about a specific child — Mercy James — but the discussion of her potential adoption is generalities (“many kids placed in an orphanage temporarily end up there for life”, etc). Mercy is not “many kids”. Her orphanage is not “most orphanages”. Her grandmother is not “most people who put their kid in an orphanage.” They are real people, places and circumstances.

I don’t expect everyone to know every detail about this child but I do expect this – if you are going to talk about this child in a blog, do at least minimum review of what info is out there on this child, the adoption and the orphanage. This child is a live human being with a REAL history and a REAL grandmother. A brief review of press reports would have revealed that the grandmother has always intended to remove the child from the orphanage by or before age 6, when the child will able to attend school all day and a good age for building up immunity to diseases that are rampant in this area. In fact, Western care workers in the country encourage this in some cases.

Who the heck are we to say the grandmother is lying? Or that we doubt her story? Or that we know anything about this family’s circumstances at all? It is beyond belief that folks could sit here and “debate” something like this when they haven’t even picked up the phone and made the simplest of inquiries!

In my opinion, nobody should blog about about removing a 4 year old child from her country (as against the ruling set forth by the Judge) and express opinions when they haven’t checked the facts. I’m an attorney but I’d never act like an expert on all legal issues. So the fact that the blogger has traveled and has been in the business of adoption doesn’t excuse her. Without the facts, the blog post is setting up a bunch of strawmen and then knocking them down.

Also, can’t believe folks are demanding Linh Song to “prove” something or provide statistics. If you disagree with the Judge’s order, feel free to fly out to Malawi and tell the Judge you want “proof” of this or that. While there you can also explain to the grandmother that you know what’s best for Mercy b/c “most orphanages are X”, “most third world country kids are Y” and “most extended family is Z”.

One of the commentors asks argues, concerning the intent to remove Mercy from the orphanage at age 6, “But how do we know that’s true”? To that I say — have you even seen the papers admitting Mercy into care? In any event, Mercy’s grandmother doesn’t have to “prove” anything to you about her intentions. She has stated her intent and who are you to suggest, on this blog, that she might be lying?

I am certain that when Mercy is older and sees this blog post, she will think “Who the heck are all these men and women injecting themselves into my life and judging me and my family?”

By: Tara

Tara — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:26:36 +0000

What about the rights of the children? I feel like all rights are given to the birthfamilies–blood does not make a family. Are there any limitations to how long a child can be “temporarily” placed in an orphanage? I am a mother–I would rather my child be placed in a loving family than have to live out his entire childhood in an orphanage with occasional visits. To me, that is what a mother ( or in this case, family) does, puts her child’s needs above her own. I know it is a terrible situation and I feel for those families, however, a child can never regain those lost days. I think social reforms to allow the child to stay in her birthfamily to begin with would certainly be ideal, but in reality how can we impose these reforms in their country when we need to do lots of work here at home? I think the reality of a thriving foster care system in Malawi is quite some time away–definitely not in time to help little Mercy for the next 3 years she has been left to spend in the orphanage. And please don’t think I am referring to adoptions where parents are lied to or are stolen–i think everyone would agree that this is horrific. I know that many will diagree with what I have written, but I feel strongly that the child’s right to have a decent life is often superceded.
Tara, mom to 2 wild boys and 1 Vietnamese Princess